Pages

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Though I normally write on gay rights and such, my other passion is clean energy and environmental policy. The new legislation that just passed the House is groundbreaking, with almost all of the Republicans in the House - obviously beholden to the Oil Lobby - opposing the legislation. It now goes to the Senate. Here is the report from CNN...

The House of Representatives passed legislation Friday which would lift the current $75 million liability cap for oil spills while imposing new safety standards for offshore drilling.

The Senate has yet to act, however, so the prospects for final oil spill and energy legislation are unclear.The House measure passed by a vote of 209 to 193.

Among other things, the bill would also impose stiffer penalties for oil rig safety violations while requiring independent certifications of key drilling equipment and demonstrations of a company's ability to respond to future rig blowouts or spills. It would also ban the practice of granting environmental waivers for drilling plans.

"We want to ensure that offshore drilling is done efficiently, while protecting both the environment and our number one natural resource -- the brave men and women who help power this great nation," Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee and sponsored the bill, said in a statement.

I have noticed that many times we throw words around without knowing what the meaning is; or others call us something when they don't understand the meaning themselves. I find this to be the case with the word bigot. This word gets thrown around alot in the discussion on gay marriage, with those who desire marriage equality calling the other side bigots and then the anti-equality side responding with "Oh these gay people are soooo tolerant." Well what is the definition of bigot and does the word apply to those who are against marriage equality?

A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Since I have been contextualizing alot of issues within the idea of a fundamentalist or traditionalist, I will do so again with the discussion on the meaning of the word bigot. I will explain how those who are anti-gay marriage are in fact bigots based on general terminology, and those who are fighting for marriage equality are correctly intolerant when they call the other side bigots. Please remember that I am not attempting to be negative here in my discussion, I am just attempting to find the appropriate word to define an action and a mentality.

The first part of the definition is the most important, and thus one I will focus on - "A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." The latter part of this sentence, opinions and prejudices, gives the idea that this means something like "unfounded assertions". Thus the person who is labeled a bigot has an opinion that is not necessarily grounded in reason; and instead base their views on unfounded assertions and opinions. Yet they do not see this; for whenever others attempt to reason with them, they fall onto unverifiable platitudes and divine texts. This is where the fundamentalist ideology comes in. A fundamentalist must necessarily believe in his "divinely inspired texts" no matter what logic, science, or reason contradicts it. If they do not accept their inspired texts and instead do accept reason, they will forfeit the certainty that their fundamental ideology gives them. This leads them into uncertainty, doubt, and eventually fear.

In the end, the person who is rightfully labeled a "bigot", is one who ascribes to an idea and will vehemently defend said idea even when logic, science, and reason contradict him. This is his obstinacy and intolerance; he is not open for any new ideas because his mind is made up, there is no changing it.

How does this, play in the debate over gay marriage? Most "bigots" - those who are against marriage equality - take a fundamental, traditional, and divinely inspired view of human sexuality. They are not open to new ideas about any of these issues, for "God has spoken.". They speak in catch phrases like "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" or "God says so, so I know so!!". They do not objectively look at the evidence on human sexuality, but instead have a intolerance for modern scientific findings. To them, anything that goes against their divine dogma is a threat that must not only be not evaluated but also attacked.

We then, on the side of marriage equality, can rightfully label those who are against us as bigots. Yet when we call them this we are labeled "intolerant". It is argued that we don't allow for any other "voice" to be heard in the political discussion on marriage equality. This is a correct assertion that the anti-marriage equality defenders make. I say to them, yes we are intolerant of your view, because in a pluralistic society, those who are against reason, logic, and science and instead evoke an unproven divine text for their bigotry, should not be allowed to shape the debate. As I have stated, tolerance only goes so far as allowing fundamentalists to practice in private. It does not allow the fundamentalist to push their agenda, based upon a "divine word", on a democratic government. Once we become "tolerant" of the fundamentalists, we will end up being subjected to tyranny, and that my friends cannot and must not happen if we want to continue to live in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

How do we go about deciding what ethical system government should be built upon? In something such as a monarchy or a religious theocracy it is based upon either one mans ideas or revealed authority. But in a democracy, when we have a pluralistic society, what dictates what is right or wrong? There is furious debate over this in the public sphere, with many on the Right saying that we must take America back to “Christian” principles and establish Biblical Law; because such Biblical Law is given from God.

I have been thinking about this for the past two weeks as I have been reading the following books (a previous BOTW and a future one) The Conservative Soul by Andrew Sullivan and American Fascists by Chris Hedges. These authors skillfully address the delicate balance of a majority’s religious opinion in a democratic pluralistic society, and thus they have influenced greatly my thinking on this.

The Fundamentalist will argue that we as humans cannot know right from wrong, because we as humans are imperfect beings. They will then claim that we must have a “divinely revealed” code of ethics and morality. This is true to an extent. We as humans cannot know right from wrong definitively, but this does not necessitate that we have divinely inspired revelation. Reason and science are able to rationally understand some ethical issues through the “checks and balances” of scientific inquiry and review.

This my friends, is how a pluralist society (which has many different religious beliefs and thoughts) must function. In a democracy we cannot just have one idea reign supreme, as the fundamentalist wants, because to do so would established governmental approval of one particular ideology. Not everyone in a society will agree with the fundamentalists’ religious ideal, so that is why we have to have governmental policy based upon something that humans can know, through experimentation and reason.

We cannot have a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish theocracy it we want to have a democracy and pluralist society. A fundamentalist theocracy will not allow dissent against the ideals of their religious dogma, so therefore there can be no democracy or pluralism. Having differing views is subversive and anti-government. We see this type of system existing in states such as Iran or Syria. Theology cannot and should not have an influence in government, because religion cannot truly tolerate dissent. An example of this historically is the Puritans in Massachusetts. They fled from the religiously oppressive England and established – not a City on a Hill like they claimed – but instead a society just as oppressive and closed to dissent as the one they were fleeing from; just look at the examples of Roger Williams and Ann Hutchinson.

Because fundamentalism cannot and should not be established within a pluralist society, the fundamentalists claim that they are being discriminated against when government will not establish their ideals within society. They say that the pluralistic society of tolerance is not applying to them; that those who claim to be tolerant of other beliefs and ideas are themselves being intolerant of the fundamentalist beliefs. Is this the case? Yes it is; but it is an acceptable form of intolerance. When faith and “divine inspiration” are established in government (over logic, reason, and science), one persons belief system has been established over others. Thus tyranny ensues, for as stated above dissent against the government is dissent against God. On the opposite side, no one in the pluralist society has established their own personal beliefs in government – yet the pluralist society allows the fundamentalist to practice their beliefs in private. This is the essence of democracy and pluralism.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Recently, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas agreed to speak at a Log Cabin Republicans fundraiser. The Times Record News reports...

Staunch social conservative Sen. John Cornyn said he’s accepted an invitation to appear at a gay and lesbian group’s fundraiser in September to seek common ground.

The junior Texas senator in charge of getting Republicans elected to the Senate has voted against same-sex marriage and opposed a recent push to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy prohibiting known gays and lesbians from serving.

But LCR executive director R. Clarke Cooper said his organization hopes to usher in an era of reconciliation between gay and lesbian Republicans and other GOP members.

The gay and lesbian group has captured the attention of the NRSC, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, the fundraising arm for House Republicans, Cooper said.

They’ve seen that while wedge issues associated with gays and lesbians might have yielded some small victories, the GOP and some candidates have seen a diminishing return, Cooper said.

“So our role within the party is to help educate current elected leaders … and also educate candidates as to how they can be still true to themselves as far as issues, as far as core conservative, back-to-basics issues without using the gay and lesbian community as a target,” he said.

Robert Schlein, president of the Dallas Chapter of the LCR, said Cornyn and Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, NRCC chairman, are in a party building mode.

“They understand the importance of reaching out and adding to the Republican ranks,” Schlein said.

Republicans aren’t going to agree on all the issues, but they can agree on core conservative beliefs such as fiscal responsibility, national security, liberty, less regulation in business and the anti-President Obama agenda, he said.

“I, as a Republican, do not want to trade the hope for gay rights for the destruction that’s happening right now in our economic system,” Schlein said.

Though I see where the Log Cabin Republicans are coming from, in trying to build bridges with the Republican establishment, they are sacrificing themselves to do so. Schlein said in the last paragraph that he does not want to trade the hope for gay rights for a bad economy. This my friends is a flawed notion. The economic doctrine of the GOP is based upon equality of opportunity and the freedom of individuals in society to make choices. A country will never grow economically as long as some of its citizens are in bondage. This is the paradox of the LCR. They will work to make an economic system based on personal freedom viable, yet at the same time support those who work directly against the fundamental principles of freedom.

Please don't think that I am lambasting the Republicans as a partisan hack, I agree with some Republican principles, but when I see gays on the side of those who want to put us into legal slavery, I cannot keep silent, no matter the party. A blogger that I follow Jerry Maneker, goes into greater detail on the Gay Conservative mind.

Armed with a new $400,000 grant and the support of the Episcopal Church, a Berkeley seminary is convening priests from across the country to craft the liturgical rite for same-sex couples to receive religious blessings. The new rite, which will take years to complete, will most likely consist of a series of original prayers, Bible readings and two essays: one on the theological meaning of same-sex blessings, and one advising priests who administer the new rite. If approved, the new blessing would be just the third addition to Episcopal liturgy since 1979.

Though there is alot of resistance from some within the Episcopal Church, as this move solidified the Church's acceptance of gay unions, the Church is not backing down on this issue. Thus, I applaud the EC for doing what is right - providing gay couples the ability to ritually be a part of the larger Episcopal community - rather than doing what is both economically or politically expedient.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Tradition. Whenever I think of that word I imagine Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, with his booming voice, singing “Tradition!! Tradition!!”. In that great Broadway musical and subsequent film adaptation, Tevye was attempting to hold together his family structure and the traditions associated with Judaism in Tsarist Russia. The concept of Tradition has had far reaching consequences in my own life, from the trivial tradition of listening to a certain song while passing through certain cities, or to the greater tradition of the concept of marriage. Tradition binds us all together, in one shape or another, into a world that makes sense. Hence, why it is so important for people to feel as though they are upholding the “traditions” of their forefathers.

The concept of tradition has gained much notoriety over the past few decades in the debate over same-sex marriage. Organizations, such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council, claim that tradition dictates that marriage be reserved for heterosexuals in one man one woman relationships. It has always been that way, countless cultures around the world have recognized the marriage relationship as such, God even defines it as such, why then should we change it? The concept of the “traditional” role of marriage must be addressed adequately by the gay community in order for those who hold to this view to see the light. In my thinking, we – the LGBT community – are losing the tradition argument. Yes, we have all the responses lined up, such as the history of marriage, how our current understanding of marriage is not traditional at all, etc. Yet we are losing this because we fail to understand why people hold to these traditions. This posts purpose is to attempt to understand why people hold to the “tradition” of one man one woman marriage even though all the arguments against them make sense.

Tradition gives us a sense of purpose and stability in the world. We think that because something has withstood the test of time that it is true and correct. Thus, if we enter into a sacrament or tradition such as marriage we feel as though our lives somehow have gained a greater form of stability. I know this feeling very well, for when I married my husband I felt as though we were “cementing” our relationship. No longer was our relationship "uncertain", for the idea of “marriage” expresses the notion of stability.Because of this special role that the marriage tradition has – giving us a sense of stability – people will attempt to protect the tradition at all costs. Because people have been told that marriage is a tradition that will be destroyed if gays are allowed to marry, they will fight against it tooth and nail. If they don’t, they subconsciously feel that their own marriages – and the security that it brings - will come crashing down. This is why, when we on the side of marriage equality ask how allowing us to get married will affect heterosexual marriages, those against marriage equality cannot give us a reasonable answer; to them it is deeply rooted in their subconscious. They assert that the tradition is in danger, because to them it truly is. Their life's stability is in danger; the way they have understood things for years will change.

But tradition does not only give us a sense of stability in the world, it gives us a sense of purpose.I remember growing up, looking forward to the day that I would be married and have kids. It gave me something to look forward to, something to aspire towards. I always dreamed that I would meet a great girl, fall in love, and have tons of little Kyle’s. All through elementary school and middle school I dreamed this dream, asking myself if the girl that I had met that previous Sunday at church was the one that I was supposed to be with.The tradition of marriage was my purpose; I knew where my life was going. Imagine my surprise when my world came “crashing down” as I realized that I would not be allowed to be married since I was gay.The argument for purpose in tradition is very similar to the argument for stability. Those who believe in the traditional institution of marriage cannot see it redefined because then it will again be “destroyed” in their understanding of it. To destroy an institution that they have aspired towards for most of their lives, will leave them feeling that those years spent aspiring towards marriage were wasted.

There is so much more that I would like to say on this topic, such as the way that we can win against those who claim to be protecting tradition. Next week I will deal with the largest impediment to change in this “tradition” mindset as I will call it – The Church. I will detail how the church must embrace a new sense of tradition and the passages on homosexuality, just as it has with slavery and women’s rights.

Once again NOM has contradicted itself...as you will notice in the "pro-NOM" video below that they have just released. Maggie Gahlaggher states that, "It takes courage now, we live in America today, where it takes courage to stand in the public square for the idea that to make a marriage you need a husband and wife."

Contrast this with the virulent opposition that NOM has been giving to the DISCLOSE Act - an act that was defeated in the Senate yesterday as reported here - when they said in an email to their supporters...

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I need your help. The Senate is poised to vote on far-reaching and draconian new requirements for non-profits this afternoon. The bill, known as the DISCLOSE Act, would require groups like NOM to publicly report our donors, and would multiply our current reporting requirements many times over.

So which is it Maggie? Do you really believe in Courage, or do you believe in it as long as the people you are fighting against dont know your name. That is not Courage...that Maggie, is true cowardice.

In a country dear to my heart - Israel - we have started to see a great emergence of the Jewish gay movement. Today, over 3,000 Israelis marched through the streets of Jerusalem amid protests from the Ultra-Orthodox groups of Israeli society. From Haaretz.

Anti-gay protesters gathered Thursday next to several hundred gay activists preparing to march in the eighth annual Jerusalem Gay Pride parade, calling them to "get out of Jerusalem. The protesters, led by extreme rightist activists Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben Gvir, hoisted banners reading "sick perverts - get out of Jerusalem."

"It is a disease of choice, and a man can change his taste and his ways," Marzel said, adding "when someone has AIDS they tell them not to infect others, so why are these people allowed to march here in Jerusalem and infect us with their disease?"

Meanwhile, rightists from the United Torah Judaism party organized a "donkeys' parade," expected to gather outside the Supreme Court, under the banner "the marchers who do what beasts do."

This my friends is not a "new" phenomena, for though Israel is the most progressive of the Middle Eastern Nations, and has some great laws benefiting same-sex couples; hatred against the Israeli Gay community still runs high, because the the Orthodox minority in the country. From the Associated Press...

The Jerusalem parade has been marred by violence in the past. In 2005, an Orthodox Jewish protester stabbed three marchers. Organizers said the fear of attack still keeps many people at home.

The LGBT community in Israel is not phased though, as the more than 3,000 paraders showed. I hope one day that Israel - even with its heavily religious minority, becomes a leader in the free world of gay rights - they are on their way.

Lambda Legal and six gay couples are filing a lawsuit in Hawaii because of the Governors decision to veto the Civil Unions Bill earlier this month. According to the Associated Press....

The lawsuit doesn't seek the titles of "marriage" or "civil unions" for gay partners. Instead, it requests that the court system extend them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage based on the Hawaii Constitution's prohibition against sex discrimination.

"We continue to be discriminated against," said plaintiff Suzanne King, who has been in a relationship with her partner for 29 years. "We're a family unit, and we live our lives just like everyone else, but we aren't treated the same."

This of course is the appropriate response. For even though I had a detailed analysis of the Hawaii governors race earlier this week and how the race will affect civil unions; it is essential that cities and states recognize that they cannot just deny citizens the rights of others because of who they love. But, this does not stop some of the anti-gays from coming out of the woodwork.

"I feel insulted. They keep bringing up Martin Luther King, black rights and women's sufferage. This is not about that. This is about two males or two females practicing sex," he said. "It's behavior. It's no different from smokers or drinkers." Said Gary Hashimoto, Chairman of the Hawaii Christian Coalition.

This is the typical mantra that the gay community receives from the religious right. Even my family members have stated this phrase to me, "It is a lifestyle, and it is about sex, why then do should you receive the same benefits as me? Someone who plays by the rules." What they fail to realize, in their tradition minded brain, is that almost every organization (except for the religious ones) are in complete agreement. Homosexuality is no more of a "lifestyle" than being straight is; hence it is called an orientation. As I stated a few days ago, I am currently writing a post on tradition and how it impacts our thoughts; look for it in the next few days.

The crux of the Hawaii argument is this...in the words of Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal.

"This case is not about marriage. It's about the right of same-sex couples to at least have a system that is understandable and complete. The state's equality guarantee at least has to mean same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities, even if it's segmented off into a system that isn't as respected, understood and revered as marriage."

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

I just received this email from the National Organization for Marriage -

I thought I had heard and seen it all, but the radicals reached a new low yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin. NOM and its supporters gathered peacefully in Madison to pray for marriage and to stand in support of marriage remaining a sacred union between men and women.

We were honored to have Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison address the crowd. Bishop Morlino spoke of the need to love one another even as we disagree on the issue of same-sex marriage. Yet when he led the crowd in the Lord’s Prayer, the gay marriage radicals screamed and booed him.

This is the face of intolerance. Isn’t it something when people who so loudly demand tolerance from everybody else, show such intolerance for those who simply wish to pray to God for the preservation of His sacred institution?

Compare this, my friends with what the video that NOM gave actually shows. I dont hear screaming or booing...instead I hear chanting, and pretty orderly chanting at that.

What the people of NOM fail to realize is that we are not anti-religion, we are anti religion being used to enforce outdated and hateful rhetoric. Though I would agree with NOM that the gay marriage supporters at least one protest, the one in Providence, Rhode Island, did not demonstrate tact; the fact that the people in Wisconsin did what they did was completely acceptable. Those at NOM demand respect when "praying", but we should only give them that respect once they give us the respect of civil equality.

Yesterday, the Parliament of Montenegro approved legislation that would bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This is coming from Montenegro; a country formerly part of the Communist Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

On 27 July 2010, the Parliament of Montenegro with a large majority (67 votes for, 6 votes against and 4 abstained) adopted all inclusive anti-discrimination law which bans discrimination in on the grounds of various characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

This contrasts with the United States, a country that was founded upon the ideals of freedom and liberty. We cannot even get anti-discrimination legislation passed for LGBT people, yet a former Communist stronghold can? My theory is that the people of Montenegro know what it is like to be oppressed, they know what it feels like to be punished because they are different than others or hold different views. The huge majority that approved this legislation in Parliament shows just how important freedom of expression and freedom from fear are to the people of this tiny Mediterranean country.

The people of the United States cannot appreciate this, because they have not had to experience hatred first hand. Those in power have not had to hide because of who they were, or jailed because they disagreed with the "establishment". In the end, I have the feeling that our "freedom" - or guise of it - will be our downfall as a country. For we cannot truly appreciate something unless we know what it is like to not have it.

Also, since I have started to notice that a large minority of my readers come from outside the United States, I will be starting to report on the international gay rights movement as well.
Thanks to Michael Hamar for the heads up.

Memphis, Tennessee is once again engulfed in the throes of hatred and animosity to anything that would make LGBT people more equal. The Tennessee Equality Project reported this on their blog earlier today.

Last night, Memphis City Councilwoman Janis Fullilove informed me that she had received four phone calls from unknown numbers threating her life. Each death threat referenced Fullilove's sponsorship of the LGBT-inclusive employment non-discrimination legislation supported by Tennessee Equality Project. Following these calls, someone threw a dead cat in Fullilove's front yard. Memphis Police have responded with added presence at her home. Fullilove and her family are safe for the moment.

This my friends, is what happens when those who are afraid of losing react. Though some will say that words do not have power, they do. When Pastor Gains of Bellevue Baptist church claimed...

''We believe this ordinance against discrimination discriminates against people of faith. Would a Christian child care center be forced to hire a transvestite?''

Gaines has called homosexuality a choice and not a civil right, and reportedly said the proposal was "dangerous" telling his congregants to contact the City Council.

Though Pastor Gaines might be "well meaning" in his words that the non-discrimination ordinance will be "dangerous" for Christians; he needs to recognize where the rhetoric of what he is saying leads. As I showed a few days ago, words have consequences, and though actions might not be intended to be byproducts of these words, they are tied inextricably to them. I can guarantee you that the death threats against Councilwoman Fullilove were motivated by the intense hatred and contempt that the "Church" throws onto the LGBT community. This is not saying that it is only the "Church's" fault; we do not help our cause when we respond to their hatred in anger, for it makes us look like the militants and aggressors.

Wrapping up, and realizing that i digressed there a bit, I applaud Councilwoman Fullilove for her courage and bravery for standing up and doing what is right. Might we all have the courage that she has.

As I reported yesterday, the Senate was going to vote on a bill that would require all special interest groups (conservative and liberal alike) to disclose who they get their money from. Religious groups, such as the National Organization for Marriage, as well as corporations have been opposed to this legislation.

The Republicans, once again showing how beholden they are to the politics of Big Business and religiously motivated hatred, successfully blocked the legislation from passing through the usage of a filibuster - with an end vote of 57 in favor 41 against.

The DISCLOSE Act would force grassroots organizations - including most 501(c)4, 501(c)5, 501(c)6, and 527 groups – to list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Groups must also post a hyperlink on their website to the FEC, where a list of the names of their donors can be accessed. This could possibly expose donors to political retaliation by motivated groups or individuals.

This, my friends, shows the true purpose behind the "blocking" of the legislation by the far right. Instead of wanting people to know where they stand on issues, individuals want to hide in the realm of secrecy. If someone is pro-life for example, they obviously don't want people to know; for they might then be a victim of retaliation. How far have we come as a country that we cannot now stand up for what we believe in because we are afraid?? Come on people, put your money where your mouth is, and stop hiding!!

Though I agree that there were some problems with the DISCLOSE Act, the reasoning given by those against it was shallow and I believe Un-American.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

According to the Department of Defense, 90% of the random members of the armed forces who were selected to participate in the Don't Ask Don't Tell survey have not completed it.

Only about 10 percent of the 400,000 servicemembers asked to complete a survey about possible repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law have responded so far, and DoD officials said they need to hear from the rest.

"It's important for them to return the survey so we understand possible impacts associated by repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law," said DoD spokesperson Cynthia Smith. She added that officials need to know how the repeal would impact unit cohesion, military readiness, recruiting, retention and family readiness.

A total of 200,000 active servicemembers and another 200,000 in the Reserve and National Guard were e-mailed July 7 with a link to an online questionnaire about possible impacts of repealing the law that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

So far, only about 40,000 of those randomly selected have completed the survey instrument, Smith said. Respondents have until Aug. 15 to complete the questionnaire.

Regardless of what the DOD might say about needing to survey the troops on this issue, the fact that the vast majority of those who are being asked about the policy have not responded suggests that they could really care less about its repeal. Inaction on something, shouts just as loud a message as filling out the survey might.

This in fact shows that the strong words by those on the Right about retention, unit cohesion, showers, and bunks, are in fact just rhetorical shams. Just by this lack of participation we can see that at least the last three are not true, and the first ones validity is even in question; for if these were big issues to the troops, they would be speaking up.

I just received this email from the National Organization for Marriage, about the DISCLOSE act, an act that is currently being debated and voted on in Congress.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I need your help. The Senate is poised to vote on far-reaching and draconian new requirements for non-profits this afternoon. The bill, known as the DISCLOSE Act, would require groups like NOM to publicly report our donors, and would multiply our current reporting requirements many times over.

Under the guise of "campaign finance reform," President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are trying to push this bill through before the November elections -- while exempting labor unions and other favorite groups. It's a blatant power grab, an attempt to punish political enemies, and it must be stopped.

Maybe NOM is afraid to report its donors because they will lost support, as people would rather support inequality in secret rather than in public. As the Supreme Court Justice Scalia - with whom I disagree frequently - stated during the case on Washington States disclosure act said this, ""Oh, this is such a touchy-feely, oh so sensitive. You know, you can't run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known."

In response to NOM's anti-disclosure stance and lobbying to Congress, let us call and email our Senators, telling them that the DISCLOSE act is essential for a healthy democracy.

A poll just released by Angus-Ried Global Monitor shows the long way that we have to go in the fight for marriage equality. According to Angus-Ried, the following questions were asked in the United States, Canada and Britain, and the results (at least on the Canadian side) can give us some hope for the future. For some reason I wasnt able to format the poll data so that it fit within my blog space, hopefully you all can forgive the "tacky" look.

Canada - Which of these statements comes closer to your own point of view on the legal recognition of same-sex couples in Canada?

Jul. 2010

Aug. 2009

Same-sex couples should continue to be allowed to legally marry

61%

61%

Same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions, but not marry

23%

23%

Same-sex couples should not have any kind of legal recognition

13%

11%

Not sure

3%

4%

United States - Which of these statements comes closer to your own point of view on the legal recognition of same-sex couples in the U.S.?

Jul. 2010

Aug. 2009

Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry

36%

33%

Same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions, but not marry

23%

25%

Same-sex couples should not have any kind of legal recognition

32%

36%

Not sure

9%

5%

Britain - Which of these statements comes closer to your own point of view on the legal recognition of same-sex couples in the UK?

Jul. 2010

Aug. 2009

Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry

41%

41%

Same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil partnerships, but not marry

37%

37%

Same-sex couples should not have any kind of legal recognition

15%

18%

Not sure

7%

5%

Source: Angus Reid Public Opinion Methodology: Online interviews with 1,003 Canadian adults, 1,002 American adults, and 1,980 British adults, conducted from Jul. 12 to Jul. 16, 2010. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent in Canada and the United States, and 2.2 per cent for Britain.

Why is the polling data from Canada significant? Because according to this poll conducted in Canada in 2003, gay marriage had significantly less support - 46% to be exact. What could this potentially show? That when you legalize gay marriage, even though a large amount of people disagree with said legalization, over time, when they recognize that the sky is not falling, they warm up to the idea. We have even seen this effect in Massachusetts in recent years as well. I therefore have hope that once the United States has marriage equality,those who fight against us will slowly see that we deserve it.